New High Court Gerrymandering Ruling Opens Opportunities For Politicians and Parties Here

The decision by the Supreme Court last week in Louisiana v. Callais—throwing out a Congressional redistricting map in Louisiana intended to give Black voters a better opportunity for proportional representation—was as predictable as it was problematic.

It also constitutes a gilded invitation for Minnesota to join the increasingly popular “gerrymandering game,” a move that would fundamentally alter the representation of Minneapolis and St. Paul voters.

While taking race into account to empower minorities is currently intolerable to the six-member conservative majority, that same “Sextet” has ebulliently ruled that partisan-drawn districts—generally undertaken to favor white, conservative-leaning voters—are perfectly acceptable and beyond the reach of federal courts. The upshot is a stark double standard: gerrymandering is forbidden if it proportionally equalizes Black voting power, but it is a protected political pastime if it enhances white incumbency.

As Justice Clarence Thomas, a mainstay of the “Suppression Six,” famously explained:

“We don’t do politics here.”

One might find that as credible as the claim that certain jurists don’t take undisclosed luxury trips from interests with stakes in their rulings.

Laughable Litigation

The standard set by the Court in the Callais litigation is laughable, but the joke is on the American voter. In his ruling for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito—architect of the Dobbs decision—effectively applied the same “scorched earth” approach to voting rights. To successfully challenge a gerrymandered map now, a plaintiff must prove “intentional” racial discrimination.

This is easily circumvented. Map-makers need only declare they are acting out of “pure political motivation” to tilt the field. Because partisan affiliation and race so frequently overlap, acknowledging cringeworthy political motives serves as a legal “get out of jail free” card for racial gerrymandering. If there is any saving grace to this contorted logic, it is that it encourages a certain perverse candor among lawmakers.

Ominous Orchestration

This underlying effort, orchestrated under the current administration to shift boundaries in favor of the GOP, is a tune Florida Governor Ron DeSantis played like a Stradivarius. Within hours of the Callais ruling, he steered a gerrymandered map through a special session, effectively marring the prospects for Florida Democrats.

While Florida and Texas lead the charge, Democratic-leaning states like California and Virginia have faced their own judicial attacks. The “mid-decade redistricting” craze has largely bypassed Minnesota—but perhaps not for long.

Greeting Gerrymandering

Minnesota has plenty of experience in the gerrymandering fray. For nearly a century through 2010, almost every post-census redistricting was greeted with litigation. One case even reached the high court: Growe v. Emison (1993), a convoluted dispute involving dueling maps from federal and state courts.

In the 2010 and 2020 cycles, we found a tenuous peace by tasking a five-member panel of non-partisan judges with drawing the lines. But if either the DFL or the GOP gains a “trifecta” control of the legislature and the governor’s mansion this fall, that peace will vanish.

These maneuvers are critical because the 2030 Census will likely see Minnesota lose at least one Congressional seat. With only seven representatives, a clever gerrymander could yield a 5–2 advantage for either party.

Potential Partisan Playbooks

Deplorable Decisions

These decisions are the culmination of a life-long goal for Chief Justice John Roberts, who has been manhandling voting rights since his days in the Reagan Justice Department. His mantra for 20 years has been:

“The way to stop discrimination based on race is to stop discriminating based on race.”

It is a simplistic remark that is as sophisticated as his “umpire calling balls and strikes” analogy. In reality, the Chief Justice has spent his tenure changing the strike zone.

Ruth’s Rebuke

Roberts took his first major stride in the 2013 case Shelby County v. Holder, which gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He deemed the “pre-clearance” provision—which required historically discriminatory states to get approval for voting law changes—as no longer applicable because it had “worked too well.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously rebuked this rationale in her dissent, noting that throwing away the VRA because it boosted registration was:

“…like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”

Black Blind

The Supreme Court today has no hesitation allowing redistricting “based on race,” provided the boundaries favor only one race—and one party. While Justice Thomas trumpets that the law must be “color blind,” the current reality is that the law is simply blind to the color Black.

They may as well dust off the “White Only” signs from the segregation-era museums. As for the mail-in ballots? The President has a plan for those, too.